Recommended Posts

I was reading an article in the local newspaper about 3D game engines, and there was a statement in there that basically said that beings these engines are now available, companies are now looking for more artists rather than actual programmers - ''cause the engine does all/most of the work! Is this true?
You can read the article here.

0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Well, that's the autodestructive nature of computer programming.I guess that as it happened to hunting, there will come the day when 99,9% of the programmers will code just for fun. The usefull coding will be done by machines.

[edited by - xaxa on March 7, 2003 11:57:53 PM]

0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

quote:Original post by xaxa Well, that''s the autodestructive nature of computer programming.I guess that as it happened to hunting, there will come the day when 99,9% of the programmers will code just for fun. The usefull coding will be done by machines.[...]

That time may happen very soon also. Supposedly the PS3 will have a cell processor that runs about 1THz. Seems that at that speed, it would take a matter of minutes to evolve a full AI for a strategy game using genetic programming.

0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

quote:Original post by Extrarius That time may happen very soon also. Supposedly the PS3 will have a cell processor that runs about 1THz. Seems that at that speed, it would take a matter of minutes to evolve a full AI for a strategy game using genetic programming.

If a 1THz process allows you to evolve a program in a matter of minutes, a 1GHz processor should allow you to evolve a program in a matter of days. Obviously, this isn''t the case.

Performance allows you to solve problems faster, but it doesn''t usually offer "new" solutions.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

to code an AI that replaces good programmers will take at least another 100 years

science knows too less about AI and what goes on in your braininfact all they know is what parts of your brain are doing but not how

an programmers will certainly not die out or be reduced to fun programmers because the amount of code you have to write to get a decent engine done grows every month

look

in the last few years you could write and engine with simple opengl now you need to proceed to another stepsimple opengl + vertex/pixelshader programming

also graphic programmer need a lot of 3D math knowledge and they need to be good in structorizing the apps the code in order to be successful

graphic artist would be the first who die out cause graphics can be produced in the best quality possible "photo realistic "the amount of graphic artists we have could produces a set of textures.... to fill the request on the market for the next few years

but programmers who are really willing to finish what they have started are very rare because there are many people who programm but somewhen reach the limits and give up

so it is not TRUE

0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I agree with what Basiror is saying.I started to think i will write my own engine(that will be good enough for a commercial title),with only a few of us doing the programming.By the time the engine would be finished,(and the time spent learning Shadersetc)the engine would most likely be not up to date,and not good enough.This is why the game industry is domininated by large companies that doesn''t give indie or small development teams a chance to compete anymore.Think back a few years,a AAA title was quite possible for a small development team,look at how some of the massive companies started out(with a small team of a handful of programmers)Final Fantasy games come to mind.The problem is when they make a lot of money,get more employees,and then their next game has better technology,the gamer will expect this standard from all other games.

I can''t remember where i heard this(so i''m not sure how true it is)but i heard from someone,GameCube are not focusing on technology as much as the competition,but on better games.How many times have you bought a game,with great looking graphics and the trimmings,only to never even get half way through completing it,because after being dazzled by the novelty of some new trick,the ACTUAL game is rubbish?A lot of games that come out nowadays,look great,but aren''t great games,where they are forced to focus on technology rather than the game.

For small teams,most of us couldn''t afford to license these middleware engines,again only big companies.

So really,there are only 2 options:Get a job in a big company(which i''m not interested in doing right now)Or use a third party engine(which i''m now thinking about)like the Torque engine.both have advantages and dissadvantages.Like the technology used in Tom Clancy''s Splintercell,the gamer will expect this kind of thing from other games.Where again,most small indie development teams,can''t compete.e.g Anybody heard of a recent title that uses the''Pre-Rendered Backdrops''trick anymore?(like the one in programming role playing games with direct x)book by jim adams?Maybe a couple of years ago(Parasite Eve,Resident evil)reviews of games i read a year ago using this trick,was classed as a very old trick and not up to date with the rest.Steve B.

0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guys, guys, guys...That is not true. Coders are needed for a lot of other things than engine development. For example scripting (and the scripting-languages of today are usually hard to tell from C++), tools and optimizing. And it''s not like all the companies use 3rd party engines. Most of them develop their own engines, which are in constant development, and someone has to make those too.

--MFC is sorta like the swedish police... It''''s full of crap, and nothing can communicate with anything else.